Heavy social media use and psychological distress among adolescents: the moderating role of sex, age, and parental support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Despite increasing evidence that social media use is associated with adolescents’ mental well-being, little is known about the role of various factors in modifying the effect of this association during adolescence. This study examined the association between social media use and psychological distress among adolescents and explored whether sex, age, and parental support moderate this association. Methods Data came from a representative sample of middle and high school students in Ontario, Canada. Cross-sectional analyses included 6,822 students derived from the 2019 Ontario Student Drug Use and Health Survey. Results Our results showed that 48% of adolescents used social media for 3 h or more per day, and 43.7% had moderate to severe psychological distress, with a higher prevalence among females (54%) than males (31%). After adjustment for relevant covariates, heavy social media use (≥3 h/day) was associated with increased odds of severe psychological distress [odds ratio (OR): 2.01; 95% confidence interval (CI):1.59–2.55]. The association of social media use with psychological distress was modified by age ( p < 0.05) but not sex or parental support. The association was stronger among younger adolescents. Conclusion Heavy social media use is associated with higher levels of psychological distress, with younger adolescents being the most vulnerable. Longitudinal studies are recommended for future research to examine in more depth the role of sex, age, and parental support in the association between social media use and psychological distress to better determine the strength and of the association.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".